Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Mister CIA

***Official*** Beto O'Rourke Thread

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

I hope the best for your community dude. I don't want a major emergency to happen, but if it does I hope Ms Hidalgo can rise to the occasion. I do understand your worry.

I hope she does as well.  I’m definitely rooting for her to succeed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bigbottom said:

For what it’s worth, I’ve been a Democrat my entire adult life. This isn’t a partisan thing. I happily voted for Beto. But I didn’t click the straight party ticket option. According to a friend of mine in government, 76.54% of voters in the county did. 

That's meaningful. I don't know if that's the cause. I saw about 1.2 million votes were cast in that election. It probably would be impossible to know but I'd love to know if there are much more D ballots or Rs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

@bigbottom

I just saw the numbers on the election. It was pretty close! Are there runoff rules there?

No runoff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for derailing the thread. The cautionary tale I am emphasizing is simply this:  If anyone in your state or district starts talking up adding a straight ticket option to your ballots, please consider opposing it. Strenuously. It serves no legitimate purpose (again, other than getting people through the polls more quickly because they don’t actually have to vote for each race) and it can lead to unintended consequences. I’ll leave it that. Thanks for the dialogue and apologies again for the tangent. 

Edited by bigbottom
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

Pretty much everyone I’ve talked to, both Democrat and Republican, are freaking out today. I’m left leaning and am freaking out. If the election was reheld tomorrow, I am confident that Emmett would win handily cause everyone knows that this was a major screwup. And when you’re talking about the chief executive who directs the county’s emergency management response, electing a recently graduates student with no relevant experience is a huge deal. If this were a legislative representative, I wouldn’t care a bit. But lives depend on the individual in this role being competent. 

Assuming she’s well trained in public policy she knows the best thing she can do is keep continuity in the chain of command and slowly hire superstars to surround herself with who have experience in areas she doesn’t.  It’s a scary situation, but it’s also going to happen some time in the next couple of election cycles.  Emmett was born in 1949. Her credentials appear to be as good as they get, so hopefully she will be able to get up to speed quickly.

Stanford, NYU, Harvard, bilingual (a medical interpreter, no less)... you could do a lot worse. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bigbottom said:

I apologize for derailing the thread. The cautionary tale I am emphasizing is simply this:  If anyone in your state or district starts talking up adding a straight ticket option to your ballots, please consider opposing it. Strenuously. It serves no legitimate purpose (again, other than getting people through the polls more quickly because they don’t actually have to vote for each race) and it can lead to unintended consequences. I’ll leave it that. Thanks for the dialogue and apologies again for the tangent. 

Agreed :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dedfin said:
40 minutes ago, Hilts said:

This presumes voters wouldn't have gone against him if it weren't for that all party option. He lost by nearly 18,000 votes. How many of those would have gone his direction if they had to pick manually? 

I understand why bigbottom and proninja are saying it was a mistake. Sure, voting for her was taking a chance against an apparently well respected judge. The voters might have made the wrong call here, but blaming it on the straight ticket option seems like someone is looking for an excuse. Just say the people chose unwisely if that's what you think guys.

As a democrat I can get behind thinking that voters made the wrong call (see 2016)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dedfin said:

Just to be sure you think Lina Hidalgo and her credentials in law and public policy are the equivalent of a podiatrist doing brain surgery. Or maybe you didn't feel like putting in the effort for a closer analogy here. I like your posts dude, but cmon.

I didn't feel the analogy needed to be exact to make the point I was going toward?

Edit. How about this. If you bet 50 to win 50 at 25 percent odds and win, it was a bad decision regardless of if the 25 percent chance hit. 

Edited by proninja
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Snotbubbles said:

Trump will be fine for 2020.  The Senate races showed that.  

There were only 33 Senate races.

In the House, where voters came out across the entire country, the votes looked virtually identical to Obama's 2012 map (not Trump's in 2016).  The only exception was Ohio.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cornyn is one of several names being mentioned as possible replacement of Sessions. This would result in an appointment to replace Cornyn and open up another senate run by Beto. If Beto could ‘t beat Cruz, he won’t beat Cornyn. But he might have a good chance of beating Cornyn’s replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Phil Elliott said:

Cornyn is one of several names being mentioned as possible replacement of Sessions. This would result in an appointment to replace Cornyn and open up another senate run by Beto. If Beto could ‘t beat Cruz, he won’t beat Cornyn. But he might have a good chance of beating Cornyn’s replacement.

That would be so crazy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, proninja said:

I didn't feel the analogy needed to be exact to make the point I was going toward?

Edit. How about this. If you bet 50 to win 50 at 25 percent odds and win, it was a bad decision regardless of if the 25 percent chance hit. 

Agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

Could you expand on this a bit?  The GOP got trounced in the Senate races in all three Great Lakes states he flipped to win in 2016. And they lost in Ohio, a state they have to win to have any shot at the presidency. And they barely won in Florida, another state they have to win, despite running against maybe the least inspiring Dem candidate of the cycle.

I'm not saying Trump is gonna lose either Ohio or Florida in 2020, just asking you to explain what you mean with your post here.  Missouri, North Dakota and Indiana were already in Trump's column in 2020, that's not exactly a new development.

Sorry I didn't answer this yesterday.  

Midterm elections are different beasts than Presidential year elections.  So when I viewed what happened on Tuesday, I looked at it from a historical perspective.  In midterms, the party that won the Presidential, and especially first term Presidents, have a difficult time motivating their voter base (the exception to this was Bush 2 who had absurdly high approval ratings after 9/11).  I know in Pennsylvania, in 2016 65% of registered voters voted, in 2018 that number dropped to 45%.  I don't see the need to go through the numbers but elected Presidents almost always take it on the chin in both the House and Senate midterms elections.  Just because Reps and Senate hopefuls didn't win certain States isn't indicative of that same result playing out in 2020 (because again the midterms are different than the general).  

So when I look historically, every first term President who gained Senate seats and then ran for re-election, got re-elected.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

Sorry I didn't answer this yesterday.  

Midterm elections are different beasts than Presidential year elections.  So when I viewed what happened on Tuesday, I looked at it from a historical perspective.  In midterms, the party that won the Presidential, and especially first term Presidents, have a difficult time motivating their voter base (the exception to this was Bush 2 who had absurdly high approval ratings after 9/11).  I know in Pennsylvania, in 2016 65% of registered voters voted, in 2018 that number dropped to 45%.  I don't see the need to go through the numbers but elected Presidents almost always take it on the chin in both the House and Senate midterms elections.  Just because Reps and Senate hopefuls didn't win certain States isn't indicative of that same result playing out in 2020 (because again the midterms are different than the general).  

So when I look historically, every first term President who gained Senate seats and then ran for re-election, got re-elected.    

Appreciate this, it's a solid analysis.  I disagree (of course), for three reasons. 

One, I don't think Trump fits neatly into historical frameworks.  He's a unique candidate and president who produces extraordinary passion both for and against him.

Two, the pattern to which you refer is mostly a product of Democratic presidents surviving GOP midterm gains to win second terms, which is usually because the lower midterm turnout skews old/Republican and then the Dem recovers when the kids and city dwellers return to the polls for presidential elections. You have to go back to 1982 to find a Republican president who suffered a midterm loss (26 seats) and recovered to win a landslide in 1984.  But he recovered because by 1984 he was turning around an economy in recession.  Trump won't have that luxury- he lost far more seats (35+ despite gerrymandering) and it's virtually a guarantee that the economy will be in worse shape in two years than it is now, largely because it can't really get any better.  OTOH it's possible that Trump unearthed a new GOP support base of non-college educated voters that will also turn out in presidential years for him, but most reports seemed to say they showed up in big numbers Tuesday too.

Three is the geography.  Trump won because he surprised in WI, MI and PA, and the Dems didn't just win in all three on Tuesday, they dominated in two and did very well in Wisconsin. Nate Silver drew up an electoral map based on adjusted House voting patterns- here's a map that shifts those results +6 for Republicans and the Dem still wins. It's possible that Trump holds a unique sway over the region that others don't, but at a minimum it's clear that those states haven't magically become Trump/GOP strongholds and are very much in play.  And the next Dem candidate won't take them for granted and will do a huge GOTV effort in the urban areas of those states (all three states have big ones).

I don't think it's a done deal by a longshot, but I'm having a hard time seeing how these midterms were good news for Trump's reelection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're commenting on things we don't really understand without a lot of context, I'd say that the fact that these two judges lost their post is a very good thing

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Appreciate this, it's a solid analysis.  I disagree (of course), for three reasons. 

One, I don't think Trump fits neatly into historical frameworks.  He's a unique candidate and president who produces extraordinary passion both for and against him.

Two, the pattern to which you refer is mostly a product of Democratic presidents surviving GOP midterm gains to win second terms, which is usually because the lower midterm turnout skews old/Republican and then the Dem recovers when the kids and city dwellers return to the polls for presidential elections. You have to go back to 1982 to find a Republican president who suffered a midterm loss (26 seats) and recovered to win a landslide in 1984.  But he recovered because by 1984 he was turning around an economy in recession.  Trump won't have that luxury- he lost far more seats (35+ despite gerrymandering) and it's virtually a guarantee that the economy will be in worse shape in two years than it is now, largely because it can't really get any better.  OTOH it's possible that Trump unearthed a new GOP support base of non-college educated voters that will also turn out in presidential years for him, but most reports seemed to say they showed up in big numbers Tuesday too.

Three is the geography.  Trump won because he surprised in WI, MI and PA, and the Dems didn't just win in all three on Tuesday, they dominated in two and did very well in Wisconsin. Nate Silver drew up an electoral map based on adjusted House voting patterns- here's a map that shifts those results +6 for Republicans and the Dem still wins. It's possible that Trump holds a unique sway over the region that others don't, but at a minimum it's clear that those states haven't magically become Trump/GOP strongholds and are very much in play.  And the next Dem candidate won't take them for granted and will do a huge GOTV effort in the urban areas of those states (all three states have big ones).

I don't think it's a done deal by a longshot, but I'm having a hard time seeing how these midterms were good news for Trump's reelection.

The Republican lost so many seats because 36 incumbent Republicans did not seek re-election in the House.  Incumbents have an extremely high re-election percentage, something like 94-95%.   

Politically, the House flipping is a good thing for Trump.  He now has House Democrats to blame for anything that goes wrong.  If they decide to spend the next two years investigating him and his administration, I think it will blow up in their faces.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

The Republican lost so many seats because 36 incumbent Republicans did not seek re-election in the House.  Incumbents have an extremely high re-election percentage, something like 94-95%.   

I think you have the causation backwards here.  Lots of incumbent Republicans decided to retire because they suspected they would lose.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I think you have the causation backwards here.  Lots of incumbent Republicans decided to retire because they suspected they would lose.

Yeah, there was a real shift toward Republicans in Congress who are in lock step with Trump. Quite a few of those Republicans who have been critical of Trump chose to retire, or lost their races. Indeed, Trump appears to be gloating every bit as much about the losses of Republicans who weren’t lock step with him. The moderate Republican voices are dwindling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

The Republican lost so many seats because 36 incumbent Republicans did not seek re-election in the House.  Incumbents have an extremely high re-election percentage, something like 94-95%.   

Politically, the House flipping is a good thing for Trump.  He now has House Democrats to blame for anything that goes wrong.  If they decide to spend the next two years investigating him and his administration, I think it will blow up in their faces.  

wonder why.  im stumped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snotbubbles said:

The Republican lost so many seats because 36 incumbent Republicans did not seek re-election in the House.  Incumbents have an extremely high re-election percentage, something like 94-95%.   

Politically, the House flipping is a good thing for Trump.  He now has House Democrats to blame for anything that goes wrong.  If they decide to spend the next two years investigating him and his administration, I think it will blow up in their faces.  

Don’t know about all of them,  but many knew they were going to lose.

The Dems need to investigate anything that they were denied in the previous session. 

They can do this and still do their work. 

Of all the ridiculous #### Trump did yesterday him saying that if the Dems investigate then he won’t work with them was near the top of the list. 

For the millionth time the guy is the worst.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

How do people vote for Ted Cruz?

Gotta be mind control. I talked to him for 90 seconds and needed two showers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.